The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Launch of Pono Studio Headphones
Old 26th April 2014
  #3931
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
... my understanding is that record contracts usually stipulate that all recordings are transferred on a work-for-hire basis...
They are definitely not work for hire. In fact Napster and their buddies tried to claim that labels had no standing in copyright infringement cases and that claim was used as a tactic to stall an injunction.

Recording contracts are all over the map. There are many cases when no massive advance was involved where the artist retained ownership of the master and leased distribution rights to a label for a finite time. Motown was launched by way of a hit record that had been leased to Chess with a buy-back clause in the contract. Beginning in 1974 reversion became obligatory after a certain number of years.

My point is that Young and a lot of other artists from the '70s have regained control over many of their albums. Pono offers them an opportunity to release higher quality reissues that the original major label CD versions. Obviously you can only lead a horse to water but Young's generation of artists have a lot more incentive than the big labels do to go the high quality route.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3932
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
Actually, I have argued that 16/44 is entirely effective in almost all listening situations FOR FINAL USE.

For recording, nope. For mixing, nope, for processing, not even close.

So let's not play that game, m'kay?
I agree, but... Still.. I listen back to the tracks I recorded at 44/16 and they still sound great, especially in a mix.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3933
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
Are you f***ing kidding me? It wasn't a "hidden claim"... it was a claim. You said, "That is exactly what science is about. When you are ready to provide testable, falsifiable data to work on, then you can begin to address science."

Unbelievable.Talk about dishonesty.
It's strictly your misconduct in trying to misrepresent what I said to you about your abuse of science as reading on Pono somehow, which it does not.

Your claims are simply false, they appear, at this point, to be deliberate misrepresentations that are intended to defame those who you THINK are your opponents.

I would suggest you need a course in debating, your flailing is really rather pathetic.

If you are still confused, as opposed to simply baiting and defaming on purpose, I suggest you read my article on the last page about preference vs. science, m'kay?
Old 26th April 2014
  #3934
mixmixmix
Guest
the post on elitism and snoberry is right on. Steve Jobs making a fortune selling ipods but listening to vinyl at home? Because he was told that vinyl sounds better.
He did not have time for double blinded ABX tests, he was busy making money. Same for Neil Young. Bunch of hypocrits...

They only hear one sound very well. The sound of cash register.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3935
Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
Are you f***ing kidding me? It wasn't a "hidden claim"... it was a claim. You said, "That is exactly what science is about. When you are ready to provide testable, falsifiable data to work on, then you can begin to address science."

Unbelievable.Talk about dishonesty.
Tripe.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3936
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
You have an awful lot of assumptions that are borderline insulting. I'm no scientist but I find being called one an honor.. But one I don't deserve. So please take it back.

Science is all about questioning what we know. If you actually care, google confirmation bias and get an earful about it. You probably won't though. Thats ok because I know you don't want to get all sciencey and stuff.

I have no discomfort about audio. At all. I thought I could hear the difference with higher sample rate audio until I tried it multiple times. I cannot. No discomfort. I find it interesting that others claim to. I don't get offended that someone else might. I admit, I doubt they can because of my experience, but it also won't rule it out.

All that adds up to... What exactly? I guess I'm probably a little too sciencey still. I prefer that to being willfully ignorant... Wouldn't you?
My apologies for coming on strong with the "Mr. Science" comment. It reflects my frustration with several of my fellow Slutz who are "Anti-Pono" that keep claiming those who "speculate" are somehow disinterested or not willing to acknowledge science. Science is not finite thing.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3937
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nspaas View Post
Tripe.
I just quoted the guy and yes what he said is most definitely tripe.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3938
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
I would suggest you need a course in debating
Personally I think you have a lot to offer the topic, but I can't read any more of your posts calling other people in the thread 'pathetic', 'confused', 'dishonest', 'a waste of time'. While at the same time you claim their counter points to yours are 'character assassination', ''evident malice, malice that appears intended to cause actual harm'.
Seriously, if you and I disagreed on a common phrase, by doing so I could potentially cause you actual harm?

I don't understand why someone this confident in their position has to use tactics that are never used in actual debate, in real life. You never hear someone in a televised debate say their opponent is a pathetic waste of time, or that their opposing view is liable to cause 'actual harm'
It would be nice if the temperature could drop a couple of notches.
No one here is going to profit directly from Pono, and no one here is going to find their economic well being threatened by Pono.
Pono is a project some believe might have merit, and others believe is deceptive. Simple as that.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3939
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
My apologies for coming on strong with the "Mr. Science" comment. It reflects my frustration with several of my fellow Slutz who are "Anti-Pono" that keep claiming those who "speculate" are somehow disinterested or not willing to acknowledge science. Science is not finite thing.
There are some areas where speculation is fine or even warranted.

the objection comes when people are being reprimanded for "failing to keep an open mind" about subjects that HAVE been investigated and found lacking - in a word...busted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
Iv'e missed digital clicks and pops on edits ....That doesn't mean that I didn't hear them or feel them the very first time. I just didn't cognitively recognize it that session...
you misunderstand how these tests are largely conducted. Most of them are NOT of the "raise your hand if you hear this" variety. Some are quite sophisticated. If there is ANY difference in how the music affects them, even subconsciously, it will have to show itself statistically over a number of trials.

Quote:
On another day with more sleep or what ever...
With hundreds of participants, you can't say they are ALL having a "bad ear day". In some cases, subjects are even hooked up to EEGs and their brainwaves are examined to see if there is any reaction in the brain, even a ripple, to the presence of the stimulus being studied.

So to use Ultrasonic Hearing as our by now familiar whipping-boy, how "open-minded" should we remain to something that has been tested over and over and has failed to show itself over and over? It's not like they haven't tried. Even though this phenomenon is so routinely trotted out as an excuse to explain away people's placebos, it has never been shown to actually, you know, exist.

Catch up with the science or don't if it is too much trouble for you. But some people here have been keeping up with the science.

"We don't know everything" but we can be pretty sure the sun will rise tomorrow and be right on time to boot. "We don't know everything" but 2 + 2 will equal 4 enough times in a row that no one should be criticized for "failing to keep an open mind" about the idea that MAYBE SOMEHOW SOMEDAY it will equal 5! Call me "close-minded" and "finite", but I will assume that ain't gonna happen.

some of the unscientific and anti-scientific claims made in this thread actually approached that same level of ridiculousness. Face it, your favorite Unicorns HAVE been investigated by Science, perhaps a bit more than they even deserve thanks to all the Unicorn Fans out there. The fact that you have not been paying attention to this research doesn't mean it hasn't been done.

Do your own tests if you want, but as long as you don't cheat, you will get the same results. That's why they call it "science".
Old 26th April 2014
  #3940
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
I "abused science"? "Misconduct"? Is this a f***ing congressional hearing or something? Listen to yourself sometime. Blowhard much?
Apparently you think it's ok to make professional accusations without being held to your claims?

Sorry, doesn't work that way. You going to back up your accusation that I lied, or are you going to retract it?

Got beef?
Old 26th April 2014
  #3941
He's going to do neither......
Old 26th April 2014
  #3942
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
I wanted to set up my own test that I could trust, and could take all by myself.

The first time I took the test I got 4 out of 5 right.

So I could tell a difference,

Regardless of all that, I did learn that I am just as susceptible to confirmation bias as the next guy. When I first listened to these files before I took the test it seemed like there was a big difference and I was sure I could ace the test easily.

firstly, well done, Sounds Great! you went off and did some scientific investigation of your own. i sincerely applaud you for testing yourself.

i'd be careful about jumping from 4 out of 5 right to the conclusion that you can tell the difference. maybe run the test at the levels you got this score a number of times. it is not necessary to do them all at once. do them when your ears are fresh. record the results for every test. every test has to be included. an equivalent of nine out of ten or above is needed.

your last statement demonstrates humility. it is very welcomed by me. challenging one's own ingrained ideas and perceptions is a choice. i think it is a good choice.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3943
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
I've recorded at and listened at 24/192. It sounded/felt more life like and tactile. Sorry.The CPU and storage was ridiculous so I don't use it.
tactile? in what way? i'm struggling to understand how a sound wave can have an effect on your sense of touch.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3944
I'm gonna guess he means more real, as opposed to virtual.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3945
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by nspaas View Post
He's going to do neither......
Yeah, he's here for an argument, not for a debate. That's very obvious. I wonder why he wants to sully the waters and confuse the actual technical issues, anyhow? Any idea?
Old 26th April 2014
  #3946
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
tactile? in what way? i'm struggling to understand how a sound wave can have an effect on your sense of touch.
Well, bass (10-100Hz in particular) can be sensed in the gut and chest.

Very high power ultrasonics creates a "touch" sensation on the skin.

But I don't think that was intended here.

Still, sound excite the sensation of touch in some cases.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3947
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
tactile? in what way? i'm struggling to understand how a sound wave can have an effect on your sense of touch.
I know that feeling. It's as if you could reach out and touch it. (Not the same as synesthesia.) This is not to say that I believe that 24/192 is necessary to experience it. I still remember one occasion many years ago, where the source was a VHS HiFi tape dubbed from a CD.

(We used to use VHS HiFi for music at parties. It avoided the drunken arguments over what to play next, and likewise damage to media and equipment.)
Old 26th April 2014
  #3948
Gear Head
 
bandpass's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris93 View Post
I'd like to try this too. I have Rush's "Moving Pictures" at 24/96, a Tascam US600 which can play back 24/96, and a pair of Shure SRH840's.

What's the "cleanest" way of converting the 24/96 down to 16/44.1 without adding any additional "distortion" that could influence the test?

Chris
This is what I did for the samples that chrisj tried earlier in the thread:
Code:
sox 1a.wav -b 16 temporary.wav rate 44100 dither -S
sox temporary.wav -b 24 1b.wav rate 96k
BUT, it's essential to prepare 1a.wav first.
1. Normalize to -n dBFS where n is the smallest number (or close to it) that avoids clipping/saturation during SRC and during playback (inter-sample overs).
2. Ensure no transients at the signal ends: fade-in, fade-out to be sure.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3949
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
Well, bass (10-100Hz in particular) can be sensed in the gut and chest.
agreed. i've felt the power of bass rolling over me like a wave. it was a drum and rhythm festival. it was zion train. it was LOUD!
Old 26th April 2014
  #3950
Yeah, but that doesn't chime with 'life like'.
In the age of DAW's and ITB, everyone is trying to make their music sound more real. People use (somewhat nonsense) phrases like 3D.
An ITB mix using all virtual instruments can sound lifeless.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3951
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
I didn't come here to prove anything. That's your area of interest, Mr. Scientist. What I propose is further questioning of what it is we think we know. You don't like that. It makes you uncomfortable because it's not always something solid you can point to at first. Apparently you guys think that we have achieved the best possible sound resolution and delivery that could ever possibly be achieved.
One of the quests for knowledge: to be able to differentiate bull****, and especially commercial, sales bull****, from reasonability and reality.

Bull**** is not pushing the barriers of knowledge, or the barriers of experience. People have a problem in understanding this.

When I wonder why people have a problem understanding this, I have to remind myself that, yes, there is bull**** that I am susceptible to. I'm "people" as well.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3952
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Personally I think you have a lot to offer the topic, but I can't read any more of your posts calling other people in the thread 'pathetic', 'confused', 'dishonest', 'a waste of time'. While at the same time you claim their counter points to yours are 'character assassination', ''evident malice, malice that appears intended to cause actual harm'.
Seriously, if you and I disagreed on a common phrase, by doing so I could potentially cause you actual harm?

I don't understand why someone this confident in their position has to use tactics that are never used in actual debate, in real life. You never hear someone in a televised debate say their opponent is a pathetic waste of time, or that their opposing view is liable to cause 'actual harm'
It would be nice if the temperature could drop a couple of notches.
No one here is going to profit directly from Pono, and no one here is going to find their economic well being threatened by Pono.
Pono is a project some believe might have merit, and others believe is deceptive. Simple as that.
Great post, Chris. Wasn't going to sully myself by posting here again, but figured this post is worth being read more than once by quite a few people here. Especially the last two sentences.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3953
mixmixmix
Guest
What do you think of Pono color?
Old 26th April 2014
  #3954
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
I didn't come here to prove anything. That's your area of interest, Mr. Scientist. What I propose is further questioning of what it is we think we know. You don't like that. It makes you uncomfortable because it's not always something solid you can point to at first. Apparently you guys think that we have achieved the best possible sound resolution and delivery that could ever possibly be achieved.
a couple of math formulas and some dsp programming can hardly be called science. the sampling formula does a great job reproducing what you didn't catch in the first place, talk about degree of death!

i have converters from 6 manufacturers, all pro, all current, after reading to much spew on gs i took half a day and did some testing.

i never once mistook the 96k for the 44.1k, the 96k sounds more solid. 192 and 96k is more programme dependent, to me the difference is smaller.

the real easy one, even easier than 44.1 v 96k is a straight wire v adda. it's like fantastically easy to get right.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3955
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
i'd be careful about jumping from 4 out of 5 right to the conclusion that you can tell the difference. maybe run the test at the levels you got this score a number of times. it is not necessary to do them all at once. do them when your ears are fresh. record the results for every test. every test has to be included. an equivalent of nine out of ten or above is needed.
Back to this again. A confidence level of 95% and up is needed to claim that you can hear the difference every time, which is nothing but hot air.

Thought experiment. If I was to claim, earnestly, that I can hear the difference between 96K and 192K one time in ten, and I wished it to be there for that one time in ten that I'm noticing it, what confidence level would I have to reach in order for this claim to be plausible?

I can't: I don't have 192K converters (despite a really alarming post-edit earlier that had me swearing and claiming I could hear 192K!) and if I did I'm certain I can't tell a difference between 96K and 192K even once time in ten.

But I do care about perceptions that I don't pick up on consistently. These are the sort of things you have to live with for a while, and eventually filter in to shape your sense of a playback device or format. 16/44.1K may be on the threshold of this, as it's challenging to identify EVERY time but well within this 'pervasively faulty' threshold where the cues for identifying it keep popping up now and then.

The faulty generalization on the 'science!' side is to associate more blurry-threshold perceptions, like signal through noise floor in the audible band, with perceptions categorically impossible like hearing x-rays with your ears. I strongly suspect audio wavelengths of 40K and up aren't human hearable at all (though bone conduction's been suggested as a perception medium). On the other hand, there seems to be a much blurrier threshold for increasing resolution… which is why my ears perk up when the design for Pono appears to be using a 'flawed' technique that's already widely used in digital audio to increase resolution by trading off frequency extension.

If it's rolling the top off and failing to correctly filter in-band directly sampled audio content that humans CAN'T HEAR anyway, I continue to maintain that this is a euphonic inaccuracy that will tend to make most people think the result 'sounds better'. 192K sampling gives you 96K audio content that does not NEED to be filtered out to be correct, and superhigh audio frequencies don't necessarily sound good to people even if they are 'correct'. They don't exist in free air beyond a certain hearing distance, and won't be perceived as natural-sounding outside of narrowly defined contexts involving obvious close-miking. On the other hand, rolling the top end gracefully will always correlate to simply moving away from the sound source a bit, and our ears will effortlessly accomodate the change.

Back to the ABX business: again, how would you go about testing and confirming a claim that I could hear a phenomenon exactly one time in ten? Assume the capacity for infinite trials, and remember the claim is not hearing ten out of ten, the claim is of hearing a phenomenon one time in ten. The rest of the time it goes unheard, but the claim is that one time in ten there is a legitimate perception correctly registered.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3956
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
Great post, Chris. Wasn't going to sully myself by posting here again, but figured this post is worth being read more than once by quite a few people here. Especially the last two sentences.
Was it necessary for you to show me that combination of half-truths, straw men, character assassination, false dichotomies, and such?

Yeah, I ***mostly*** agree with the last two sentences he said (he is blocked here for what I hope are obvious reasons, I do not desire to argue with the irrational or intentionally argumentative among other things), I will note that there is a level of total BS in audio that is exceeded only by a few things in life, like "alternative medicine". This BS has caused great harm to the industry, and has provided a reason for many people avoid audio as a research topic, not bother to develop new technology, and in general hold all of the field of consumer audio in abject, raging contempt.

That is hardly positive, and such attitudes most certainly affect everyone's income in this discussion, assuming you're involved somewhere in the audio industry, in one way or another.

If you go to the Heyser Lecture I gave at the last SF AES conference, you will see for yourself my position on this issue, which is that the arrogance, insults, veiled attacks, and "king of the hill" behaviors so prevalent here are one of the major issues that prevent us from moving forward to a better audio experience. Gearslutz is nothing more or less than a microcosm of the rest of the audio industry, where a combination of myth, commercial ambition, and egos simply rule out advances that were (and I mean this literally, not figuratively) known about in the 1930's. YES. We're working on 100 years of ignoring basic evidence and physics, and part of what brought that about was one of the first "meme wars" complete with slogans and extensive, unwarranted ridicule in the 1930's and 1940's. Nothing has changed in the audio world in terms of positive attitude to this day.

There are things that are unknown, but for the most part, that is not what is being argued here, what is MOSTLY being argued here is old news, and involves well established science. Now that does not mean, for instance, Redbook is perfect, despite what some people have misrepresented myself (and others) as saying. It does not mean that no improvement is possible. What it DOES mean is that some particular ideas (again, not necessarily talking about Pono, marketing is marketing, and I am not about to tell anyone what to prefer for their own personal use) need to be dropped and forgotten, so that we can see progress on issues that might make a real difference.


What I see, rather, throughout most of the industry, is still dickering about the same issues, the same issues about digital audio I've seen argued in 1985 and 1990. Different people, different egos, but the same issues. And the issues are mostly not even really issues, they were resolved in the telecom industry by the 1950's. (I refer to the Sampling Theorem, need for dithering, quantization noise floors, how the ear works, and the like.)

It's time to move on and do something that is better for the listener. Really. It's time. That's what will keep audio, music, and radio for that matter, alive for the future.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3957
Ironically, arguably the worst thing that has happened to the music industry since 1990 is the mp3.
It's been a financial and convenience windfall for consumers of course.
But we're not in a crisis about which audio format to choose, CD or DSD, 44.1khz vs 96khz (or 192khz), we're in a crisis about a decline in sales, and/or interest.
This is something Pono seeks to address.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3958
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
Back to the ABX business: again, how would you go about testing and confirming a claim that I could hear a phenomenon exactly one time in ten? Assume the capacity for infinite trials, and remember the claim is not hearing ten out of ten, the claim is of hearing a phenomenon one time in ten. The rest of the time it goes unheard, but the claim is that one time in ten there is a legitimate perception correctly registered.
So, exactly what do you mean by 1 time in 10? Do you mean that 9 times out of 10 your answer is random and the 10th is correct? So out of 100 trials, you'll get 45 wrong answers and 55 right answers on average?

First, we have to establish what you actually mean.

If that's your question, the answer is trivial. You simply use enough trials that an overall success rate of .55 is distinct to 5%, or 1%, from a success rate of .5, just choose your error bound and calculate the necessary number of trials. It's that simple. For instance, for 100 trials, the chance of getting 55 or more by random chance is .13563, give or take. For 200 trials, it's reduced to .068. For 300 trials, it's .0366. So you'd be under a 5% bound at under 300 trials. You would still have a significant chance of missing this result by random chance, however. You need to figure out both type 1 and type 2 error statistics, or do a more sophisticated statistical analysis to be sure. Still, I'm pretty sure you'll come in well under 1000 trials, which is by the way a bloody lot of trials.

You'd actually have a .0366 chance of doing 50% or under by random chance, even given your choice of detection probability, for example, but that's not really what you want to know, what you want to know is when the number of trials that constitutes success by random chance of say, 1% is equal to the number of trials that constitute the 1% chance of failure by random chance.

You can figure that out easily enough.

In short, you test your particular example like you'd test any other. There's no magic.

Any statistics book can tell you how to do that. It's 3:40 am and I'm about to go to sleep, so I am NOT going to do the math for you this time, but it's not that hard. Really. Pick up a basic statistics book. Please.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3959
mixmixmix
Guest
It is time to let go of promise of better sound. We already have the best, and many are enjoying it. But the magic numbers such as 88, 192 and others are so tempting. Grass is always greener ... - It always sounds better on the other side of Nyquist.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3960
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
Back to the ABX business: again,
you obviously have an issue with ABX testing. why don't you write a research paper on it and submit it for peer review? i am sure that the likes of Daniel Kahneman would feel privileged to be educated by you and your depth of understanding.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump